From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Date: | 2010-08-11 14:01:43 |
Message-ID: | 4C62AD47.9070305@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/11/2010 09:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 08/11/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... However, it does seem like we ought to be able to
>>> do something about two buildfarm critters defaulting to the same choice
>>> of port number.
>> Why not just add the configured port (DEF_PGPORT) into the calculation
>> of the port to run on?
> No, that would be just about the worst possible choice. It'd be
> guaranteed to fail in the standard scenario that you are running
> "make check" before updating an existing installation.
One of us is missing something. I didn't say to run the checks using the
configured port. I had in mind something like:
port = 0xC000 | ((PG_VERSION_NUM + DEF_PGPORT) & 0x3FFF);
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-11 14:06:35 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-11 13:55:07 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |